'^••*< i it^.»ft « .»''**4. , >IV «

^•^rPARTMENTO F : ^ : •'iSPORW r •;:--ETOPER/

V < V 1, . »

2:' ? ij V ! 5 P R

E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATION e^onorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Ronni e A. Yode

r h ^ I n th e matte

r o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden

t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docket No. : CP09EA0007 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 RESPONDENT' S REPL Y T O MOTIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r

DECISIO N an d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a) AMENDMEN T T O COMPLAIN T Come s no w th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LL

C d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s [hereinafte r "USA3000" ] and REPLIE S t o th e Complainant' s ANSWE R to th e MOTIO

N FO R SUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T AN D TO DISMIS S and urge s th e Administrativ e La w Judg e t o dismis s al l charge s agains t the Respondent . I . Argumen t A . Th e Administrato r Ha s No t Raise d An y Materia l Factua l Disput e I n respons e to th e Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment , th e Administrator ha s no t alleged tha t there ar e an y dispute d materia

l issue s o f fact . The Administrato r

repeat s th e allegation s o f

th e Complain

t in hi s Statemen

t o f th e Facts , but offers no othe

r evidenc e to suppor

t thos e allegations . Se

e Complainant' s Answe r to Respondent' s Motio n fo r Summar y Judgmen

t o r Decisio n and Motio n to Dismis s 91.13(A ) Amendmen t to Complaint , a

t 2- 4 [hereinafte

r "FAA' s M S J Answer"] . Althoug h ther e ar e allegation s mad

e i n th e Complain

t in thi s case , non e o f

thos e allegation s hav e bee n supporte d wit h probativ e evidence . A s discusse d i n th e Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment , wher

e th e FA A bear s th e ultimat

e burden o f

proo f (a s in thi s case , pe r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a)) , th e FA A ha s a n obligatio n to com

e forwar d wit h significan

t RESPONDENT' S REPL

Y TO MOTIO

N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an d the La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Diclistei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6probativ e evidence , an d ma y no t merely res t

o n th e allegation s o f

th e Complaint . Se

e Respondent' s Motio n fo

r Summar v Judgmen

t or Decisio n an d Motio n t o Dismis s 91.13(A ) Amendmen

t to Complaint , a

t 7-8 . B . Th e Par t

9 1 Claim s Shoul d B e Dismisse d The firs t set o f issue s ar e th e Par t 9 1 issues , raise d unde

r 91.7(a) and 91.13(a) . 1 . Alask aAirline s Wa s a n Applicatio n o f Respondea t

Superior , Bu t Thi s i s No t

aRespondea t

Superio r Cas e Th e Administrator

cite s t o th e AlaskaAirline s cas e an d attempt s to sugges t

tha t ther e i s no knowledg e elemen

t in a n airworthines s cas e agains t a n ai r carrier . FAA' s MS J Answe r a t 7 . Thi s i s actually contrar

y to th e AlaskaAirline s decision . I n th e Matte r o f AlaskaAirlines . FA

A Orde r No . 2004-8,200 4 FA

A LEXI S 90 5 (FA

A 2004) . I

n tha t cas e th e knowledg e o f

amaintenanc e contractor

wa s impute d to th e ai r

carrie r (tha t cas e di d not vitiate th e knowledg e elemen t fo r th e air carrier) . Id . AlaskaAirline s wa s no t

a91. 7 case . The allegation s i n tha t cas e wer e purely maintenanc e allegation s and ther e wa s n o clai mo f

aviolatio n o f

sectio n 91. 7 in tha

t case . Therefore , th e Administrator' s relianc e o n tha t cas e a s th e basi s fo

r th e propositio n tha t ther e i s n o knowledg e elemen

t when a n ai r carrie r i s accuse d o f

asectio n 91. 7 violatio n i s nonsensical . Alask aAirline s hel d tha

t a n air carrie r ma y no t look th e othe r wa y in orde r t o avoid th e knowledg e o f

it s maintenanc e contractors . I n fact , tha t cas e impute d th e knowledg e o f

th e maintenanc e contractor (th e agent ) to th e ai r carrie r (th e principal) . Thi s i s astandar

d applicatio n o f

agenc y law , i n whic h th e principa l ma y no t escap e respondea t superio r liabilit y fo r th e ac t o f th e agen t by claimin g lack

o f knowledg e o f

th e agent' s actions . On e ke y elemen t o f th e AlaskaAirline s cas e i s tha t ther e seemed to b e no doubt tha t th e maintenanc e contractor ha d don e something wron g - th e questio n wa s whethe r th e ai r carrie r wa s responsibl e fo

r th e action s o f

it s agent . I

n th e Matte

r o f Alask a RESPONDENT' S REPL

Y TO MOTIO

N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 2 Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Airlines . FA A Orde r No . 2004-8,200 4 FA

A LEXI S 90 5 (FA

A 2004) , relyin g o n I n th e Matte r o f Empir e Airlines . FA

A Orde r No . 2000-1 3 a

t 12-1 5 (Jun e 8,2000 ) (holdin g th e ai r carrie r responsibl e fo

r th e violation s o f

it s independen

t contractor) . Th e cas e a t ba r i s quit e differen t fromth e AlaskaAirline s case . I n thi s case , ther

e i s no allegatio n tha

t an y agen t ha d th e requisit

e knowledg e to serv e a s th e foundatio n fo r asectio n 91.7(a) violation . Whil e in AlaskaAirlines , th e Administrator impute d th e knowledg e o f

th e maintenanc e contractor t o th e air carrier , an d refused t o permi t

th e air carrie r t o plea d it s ow n lack

o f knowledg e a s adefense , ther e i s n o allegatio n in th e cas e a t ba r tha t th e maintenanc e contractor ha d an y knowledg e t o suppor

t asectio n 91.7(a) allegation , no r

i s there an

y allegatio n tha

t th e maintenanc e contractor di d anythin g wrong . Thus , ther e wa s nothin g t o "impute " to US A 3000 . Instead , th e Administrator

i s seekin g to avoi d th e knowledg e elemen t altogethe r in th e cas e a t bar . Th e Administrator

canno t d o this . The court s hav e mad e i t quit e clea r tha t violatio n o f

91.7(a) i s a

n offens e tha

t ha s aknowledg e element . 2 . Th e Administrator' s Propositio n Woul d Resul t i n a n Unexplaine d Departur e fro mPrio r Preceden t Th e Administrator

suggest s tha

t a91.7(a ) allegatio n ha s differen

t elements , dependin g o n th e part

y agains t whomi t i s brought . I

n particular , th e Administrator suggest s tha

t a91.7(a ) allegatio n ha s aknowledg e elemen t when allege d agains t

apilot , but tha t thi s elemen

t nee d no t b e proven whe

n th e sam e violatio n i s allege d agains t a n ai r carrier . FAA' s MS J Answe r a t 7 . The Administrator

acknowledge s tha

t i t i s alread y well-settle d tha

t sectio n 91.7(a

) ha s aknowledg e element . Th e Administrator

trie s to dra

w adistinction , though , betwee n applicatio n o f

91.7(a) agains t

pilot s an d applicatio n o f

91.7(a) agains t

air carriers . Th

e Administrator

claim s tha

t a91.7(a) allegatio n doe s no t hav e aknowledg e elemen t whe n raise d agains t

a n air carrier . FAA' s MS J Answe r a t 7-8 . Th e Administrator

specifically state s tha

t "the standar

d fo r airworthines s violation s i s differen t fo r ai r carrier s the n [sic ] i t

i s fo r pilots. " I d a

t 8 .

RESPONDENT S REPL

Y T O MOTIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 3 Washington Aviatio n Group , PC an d the La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wiscons mAvenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Thi s propositio n i s afacia l violatio n o f

th e Administrativ e Procedure' s Act' s ba r agains t arbitrar y an d capriciou s decision s ( 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(a)) . Ther e i s nothin g in th e FAA' s regulation s t o permi t adistinctio n between applicatio n o f thi s regulatio n to pilot s a s oppose d to air

carriers . Ther

e i s nothin g i

n eithe r th e regulations , cas e law , no r statutor y la w t o permi t

such adistinction . Becaus e th e Administrator offer s n o reasonabl e basi s fo

r drawin g adistinctio n between th e wa y tha t th e regulatio n i s applie d t o pilot s an d th e wa

y tha t th e sam e regulatio n i s applie d to ai r carriers , thi s distinctio n represent s adepartur

e fromprio r

agenc y practice . A

n agency' s unexplaine d departur e fromprio r

agenc y practic e i s arbitrar

y and capricious . E.g . Grac e Healthcar e v . Unite d States . 58 9 F.3 d 926 , 93 5 (8t h Cir . 2009) . 3 . Th e 91.1 3 Clai mCanno t b e Sustaine d Th e Administrator

claim s tha

t th e 91.13(a

) clai min bot

h th e Surrat

t cas e and in th e cas e a t ba r arise s a s a"residua

l or derivativ e charg e o f

th e 91.7(a) claim. " FAA' s MS J Answe

r a t 9-10 . Th e recognitio n tha

t th e 91.13(a

) claimi s th e sam

e i n bot h case s should b e enough to brin g i t withi n th e scop e o f

th e collatera

l estoppe l argument . I

n addition , though , th e defense s raise d b y th e Administrator to th e Statut

e o f Limitation s claimha s n o lega

l weight . Th e Administrator

raise s tw o defense s agains t th e claimtha

t th e 91.13(a) claim wa s raise d afte

r th e statut e o f limitation s ha

d alread y expired . Th

e first i s tha t th e failur e to rais e i t wa s inadverten

t o n th e par t o f th e Administrator . The secon d i s th e clai mtha t th e failur e to rais e i t wa s no t prejudicial . A statut e o f limitation s i s jus t

that : astatute . Whil e ther

e ar e equitabl e response s t o the statut

e o f limitation s defense , " I di d no t mea n t o mis s th e statutor

y cut-off ' an d lac k o f prejudic e ar

e no t among them . Th e Administrator filed aNotice , aFina

l Notic e an d aComplain

t i n thi s case , an

d non e o f thos e thre e document s allege d a91.13(a ) claim . Ther e wer e plent y o f opportunitie s t o rais e th e allegatio n befor e th e statur

e o f limitation s ha d passed ; failur

e to d o s o canno t

reasonably b e describe d a s inadvertent . The Administrator

offer s n o analysi s o f

prejudic e - h e merely suppose s tha t ther e i s n o prejudic e becaus e o f

hi s analysi s tha

t th e 91.13(a

) claimarise s a s a"residua

l o r RESPONDENT' S REPL

Y TO MOTIO

N FOR Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d the SUMMAR Y JLTDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein Pag e 4 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6derivativ e charg e o f th e 91.7(a) claim. " I

f th e 91.13(a

) clai mi s trul y synonymou s wit h th e 91.7(a ) claim , the n there i s n o nee d t o rais e i t a s a n additiona

l claim , and th e Administrator' s effor

t t o d o s o i s moot . Bu

t eve n i f th e Administrator' s clai mo f lack o f prejudic e wer

e true , lack

o f prejudic e i s no t

avali d counte

r to astatute o f

limitation s defense . Th e Administrator i s no t free to waive statutor

y protection s o n awhim . Raisin g th e 91.13(a

) clai mfo r th e first time afte r th e statut e o f limitation s ha s alread

y passe d i s inappropriate . 

### C . Th e Par t

4 3 Claim s Mus t

B e Dismisse d for

Failur e t o B e Sustaine d Wit

h Sufficient

Evidenc e t o Make-Ou t

aPrim aFaci e Clai m 1 . Th e Administrato r Fail s t o Mak e Ou t

aRea l Issu e o f Materia l Fac t Despit e havin g had ever

y opportunit

y t o d o s o in discovery , and i n respons e to th e Motion fo r Summar y Judgment , th e Administrator ha s filed to offe

r an y fact s tha t migh t suppor t aPar t 4 3 allegation . 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.1 3 i s aregulation s concernin g maintenance . Th e Administrator

canno t point to asingl e maintenanc e operatio n o n N26 5 A V in which th e spoile r issu e arose , and th e Administrator' s own investigatio n cleare d AA R o f an y wrong-doing on N265AV . The Administrator eve n accept s tha

t i t i s possibl e tha

t a n unrelate d third-part

y performe d a

n unrelate d maintenanc e or non-maintenanc e operatio n tha t resulte d in th e spoile

r issue . FAA' s MS J Answe

r a t 12 . The known fact s are these : • Maintenanc e wa s performe d on the aircraft ; • Th e aircraf t wa s checke d o n Ma

y 15t h and i t wa s confirme d tha

t the spoiler s wer

e operational ; • Th e spoiler s wer

e discovere d in anon-operationa l mode (coincidentally calle d "maintenanc e mode" ) on Ma y 17th ; • Ther e i s n o evidenc e o f

anyon e puttin g th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mod e o n o r afte r Ma y 15th ; • N o one , includin g th e Administrator , know s wh o place d th e spoiler s int o maintenanc e mode , o n o

r afte r Ma y 15th ; RESPONDENT S REPL

Y T O MOTIO

N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Page s Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d the La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6• N o one , includin g th e Administrator , know s ho w th e spoiler s wer e place d int o maintenanc e mod

e on o r afte r Ma y 15th . Ther e i s n o connectio n betwee

n th e spoiler s an

d an y maintenanc e activity . Becaus e th e Administrato r

ha s ye t to poin t to asingl e fac

t supportin g it s allegation s o f maintenanc e violations , th e Par t 4 3 claim s shoul d b e dismissed . 2 . Th e Administrato r Ha d Faile d t o Offe

r an y Evidenc e t o Suppor t aTheor y o f

th e Cas e i n Whic h aMaintenanc e Violatio n Occurre d A s discusse d i n th e Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment , th e part

y wit h th e burden a

t tria l cannot res t o n th e pleading s an

d surviv e such amotion ; th e part y wit h th e burde n a

t tria l bear s aburde n to com

e forwar d wdt h significan

t probativ e evidenc e supportin g hi s prim afaci e case . Se

e Respondent' s Motio n fo

r Summar v Judgmen

t o r Decisio n and Motion to Dismis s 91.13(A ) Amendmen t t o Complaint , a

t 7-8 . I n thi s case , th e Administrator claim s i n th e pleadin g tha

t maintenanc e wa s performe d tha t resulte d i n th e spoile

r issue . Bu t th e answer s to discover

y sho w tha

t th e Administrato

r canno t sa y fo r certai n tha

t th e spoile r issu e wa s th e resul t

o f maintenanc e - thi s i s admittedly amer

e unsubstantiate d conjectur e o n th e par

t o f th e Administrator . The Administrato

r canno t sa y wh o performed th e allege d maintenanc e i n th e conjecture . The Administrator

canno t sa y wha t allege d maintenanc e resulte d in th e spoiler s issue . Th e Adminisfrato

r ha s n o evidenc e to sho w acausa l lin k between an

y maintenanc e tha

t wa s performe d b y anyon e and th e spoile r issue . The Administrator' s own investigativ e note s show tha t th e Administrato r

doe s no t hav e enoug

h evidenc e t o answe

r an y o f thes e questions . Mor e importantly , in respons e to th e challeng e pose d b y th e Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment , th e Administrato r doe s no t offe r asingl e shred o f

evidenc e t

o suppor t it s theor y o f th e cas e - n o documents , no affidavits , and n o physica l evidence . Th

e Administrato

r offers nothin g mor

e tha n a n unsupporte d theor

y tha t som e identifie d maintenanc e wa s incorrectl y performed a t som e unidentifie d time .

RESPONDENT' S REPL

Y TO MOTIO

N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 6 Washington Aviation Group , P C an d the La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6A n importan

t distinctio n betwee

n thi s cas e an

d th e AlaskaAirline s cas e i s tha t i n th e AlaskaAirline s case , ther e wa s n o disput

e tha t th e maintenanc e confractors ha d violate d maintenanc e regulations . I n th e Matte

r o f AlaskaAirlines . FA

A Orde r No . 2004-8,200 4 FA

A LEXI S 90 5 (FA

A 2004) . I

n thi s case , o n th e othe

r hand , th e Administrator

ha s no t allege d tha

t AA R (th e maintenanc e contractor ) violate d an

y maintenanc e regulation . I

n fact , th e Administrator' s investigatio n note s mak e i t clea r tha t th e FA A ha s n o evidenc e o

f wrongdoin g o n th e par

t o f AAR . Thi s i s acritica

l differenc e between th e case s becaus e th e Administrator ha s mad e i t clea r tha t h e canno t poin t to an y maintenanc e tha

t wa s improperly performe d i n thi s case . H e ha s made i t

equally clea

r tha t h e canno t identif y an y perso n who improperl

y performed maintenanc e o n N265AV . Th e Administrator

i s stil l unabl e t o identif

y an y improperly-performe d maintenance ; th e Administrator i s als o unabl e to dra

w acausa l lin k betwee n an

y maintenanc e an

d th e spoile

r issue . Thus , ther

e i s n o factua

l allegation s tha

t an y maintenanc e failed t

o mee t th e 1 4 CF R 43.1 3 standard s cite d b y th e Administrato r in th e Complaint . Therefor

e th e Administrator' s claim s concernin g improperly-performe d maintenanc e mus t

b e dismissed . 3 . Th e Administrato r i s Arguin g aPar t

12 1 Violation , no t

a Par t 4 3 Violatio n Rathe r tha n presentin g evidenc e o f

aPar t 4 3 violation , th e Administrato r instea d argue s tha t US A 300 0 ha s violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a) . E.g . FAA' s MS J Answe r a t 12 . Aside from alac k

o f evidenc e to suppor

t suc h a n allegation , th e Administrator ha s alread y withdraw n it s allegation s o f a1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a

) violation . Thi s clai mwa s presente d i n th e origina

l Complain

t an d i t wa s withdraw n i n th e Firs t Amendmen

t to th e Complaint . Therefor

e i t should no t

b e entertaine d by th e Court . The Administrator' s relianc e o n th e AlaskaAirline s cas e a s abasi s fo r th e 43.1 3 claim s i s misplaced . The AlaskaAirline s cas e foun d aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363 , which impose s respondeat-superior-Vk e obligation s o n th e ai

r carrie r wit h respec t to confrac t maintenance . The FA

A ha s n o claime d tha

t AA R di d anythin g wrong , s o ther e RESPONDENT' S REPL

Y T O MOTIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 7 Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d the La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wiscons mAvenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6i s n

o basi s fo r holdin g US A 3000 responsibl e fo r th e error s o f

AA R (whethe r tmde r §43.1 3 or §121.363) . The AlaskaAirline s cas e di d no t addres s 43.1 3 violations . Althoug h th e FA A mad e 43.1 3 claim s in AlaskaAirlines , ther e wa s n o 43.1 3 finding i n tha t cas e (th e cas e wa s decide d a s a121.36 3 violation) . The sectio n 121.36 3 clai min th e US A 3000 cas e i s on e o f th e claim s tha

t wa s voluntarily dismisse d b y th e Administrator

whe n he amende d hi s Complaint , s o relianc e o n th e AlaskaAirline s cas e i s inappropriate . Furthermore , th e Adminisfrator' s positio n on 121.36 3 in th e US A 300 0 cas e seem s t o stretc h th e limit s o f interpretation . Th

e Administrator' s positio n seem s t o b e a n expande d connotatio n o f

th e ter m"maintenance " tha

t assume s tha

t anythin g tha

t happen s t o a n aircraf t i s amaintenanc e activit

y an d tha t therefor e ther e i s no nee d to defin

e wha t happened .. . i t

ca n merel y b e assume d to b e amaintenanc e activity , n o matter wha t i t really was . Thi s expande d connotatio n o f th e ter m"maintenance " nee d no t

b e examine d b y th e Court , becaus e th e expande d connotatio n i s onl y applicabl e in th e context

o f a1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a

) (not aPar t 4 3 allegation , in whic h th e definitio n o f maintenanc e i s clear ) and th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a ) clai mha s alread

y been droppe d b y th e Administrator . Unsubstantiate d claim s o

f violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a

) canno t tak e th e plac e o f substantiv e probativ e evidenc e supportin g allegation s o f Par t 4 3 violations . 

### n . Conclusio n Th e Par t 9 1 claim s foun

d i n th e Amended Complain t hav e bot h been full

y litigate d agains t

th e pilot s (wh

o ar e th e only relevan

t agent s o f US A 3000) , an

d th e NTS B foun d tha t th e pilot s di d no t

violat e 91.7(a) nor

91.13(a) . Importan

t factor s in thi s finding wer e (1 ) th e pilots ' lack

o f knowledg e abou

t th e malfimction befor

e th e aircraf

t took off , (2 ) th e pilots ' reasonabl e action s afte r obtainin g knowledg e o f

th e spoile

r malfunction , an d (3 ) th e finding tha

t th e pilot s di d no t

ac t recklessly o

r carelessly . For

purpose s o f

th e cas e agains t

US A 3000 , th e pilot s wer e the onl y relevan t agent s o f

US A 300 0 wit

h respec t to th e Par

t 9 1 allegation s agains t

US A 3000 . Unde

r th e doctrin e o

f collatera l RESPONDENT' S REPL

Y TO MOTIO

N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Page s Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC an

d the La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6estoppel , th e Par t 9 1 claim s hav e alread

y been decided agains t

th e Adminisfrator , an

d therefor e th e Adminisfrato

r i s estoppe d fromraisin g th e sam e Par t 9 1 issue s agains t

US A 3000 . Th e Adminisfrator' s clai mtha t 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) ha s differen t element s depending o n th e targe t

o f th e enforcemen

t actio n i s simpl

y arbifrar y and capricious , an

d i s recip e fo

r unravelin g th e doctrin e o f

star e decisis . Th e Par t 4 3 claim s foun

d in th e Amended Complain t bot h assum e tha t US A 3000 acted throug h AA

R i n violatin g maintenanc e standards . But th e Adminisfrato

r canno t poin t t o an y maintenanc e activit

y tha t wa s improperl

y performed , an

d th e Administrator ha s n o evidenc e to suppor

t th e contentio n tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e positione d to th e maintenanc e mod

e durin g amaintenanc e operatio n performed b y US A 3000 , b y AAR , o r by anyon e els e unde

r US A 3000' s direction . Th e tw o Par t 4 3 allegation s agains t

US A 3000 should als o b e dismisse d becaus e th e Adminisfrato r ha s offere

d n o evidenc e o

f imprope r maintenance , an

d ha s offere

d no evidenc e o f

acausa l lin k between an

y maintenanc e performe d an

d th e spoile

r malfunction . Fo r th e reason s state d above , th e fou r claim s foun

d in th e Amende d Complain t should b e dismissed . RESPECTFULL

Y SUBMITTE

D thi s 2n d da

y o f November , 2010 . WASHINGTO

N AVIATIO

N GROUP , P C AN

D TH E LA W OFFICE S O

F JASON A DICKSTEI

N

Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC an d th e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000

7 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorney fo

r Responden

t Brenda n Airways , LL

C dA)/ aU S A 3 00 0 Airline s RESPONDENT S REPL

Y TO MOTIO

N FOR SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 9 Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d the La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 - Tel : 202-628-677 6BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATION Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Ronni e A. Yode

r I n th e matte

r o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden

t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docke t No. : CP09EA0007 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

Th e undersigne d hereb y certifie s tha t sh e caused th e attache d

• REPL Y T O MOTIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r

DECISIO N an d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a) AMENDMENT T O COMPLAIN T t o b e filed a

t th e addresse s liste d belo w by two-da y FedE x service , o n th e dat

e indicate d below . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 600 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit

e 2W1000 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docket

Clerk , AGC-43 0 An d t o b e served o n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste d belo w b y th e sam e metho d a s th e filing method , on th e dat

e indicate d below . David M . Cohen , Attorney Federa l Aviatio n Adminisfration Offic e o f th e Regiona

l Counsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N

Y 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fax:(718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Roimi e A . Yode r Chie f Adminisfrativ e La

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mE12-32 0 U S Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jersey Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

Kat t Stanle y Novembe r 2,201 0 Dat e

CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC E Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an d the La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6